We're running GRE/IPSec transport over a point-to-point DS3.
We're also doing some QoS. The traffic mix is voice; our
average packet size can be as low as 250 bytes at times.
We are seeing incredibly high CPU when the traffic levels
approach 30Mb/s and around 11kpps in each direction, at times
We have several clients who are experiencing downtime right now on
GBLX's network, as well as seeing some intermittent routing problems
coming from our GBLX link. Has anyone been able to get more than the
standard The technicians are trying to isolate the problem out of GBLX
at this point?
COMSNETS 2011
The THIRD International Conference on COMmunication Systems and NETworks
January 4-8, 2011, Bangalore, India
http://www.comsnets.org
Email: comsnets2...@ece.iisc.ernet.in
(In Co-operation with ACM
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Tim Donahue
tdona...@vonmail.vonworldwide.com wrote:
We have several clients who are experiencing downtime right now on GBLX's
network, as well as seeing some intermittent routing problems coming from
our GBLX link. Has anyone been able to get more than the
COMSNETS 2011
The THIRD International Conference on COMmunication Systems and NETworks
January 4-8, 2011, Bangalore, India
http://www.comsnets.org
Email: comsnets2...@ece.iisc.ernet.in
(In Co-operation with ACM
What are the layer 8-9 issues?
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net wrote:
On Nov 18, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Shacolby Jackson wrote:
Has anyone had any experience (good or bad) with their exchange at any of
their major datacenters, especially
8 users
9 politics and policies
-Original Message-
From: Paul WALL [mailto:pauldotw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Mehmet Akcin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: experience with equinix exchange
What are the layer 8-9 issues?
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
Hiya folks,
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
addresses or BGP? Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty. How many of
the rest of you are making IPv6 installation harder for your customers
than it needs
http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cotton-t-shirt
--bill
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:01:39AM -0800, Steve Miller wrote:
politics, finance...
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Paul WALL pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
What are the layer 8-9 issues?
On 11/18/2010 11:06, William Herrin wrote:
Hiya folks,
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
addresses or BGP? Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty. How many of
the rest of you are making IPv6
We treat it as a technical request - a MAC of sorts. The only time we would
treat it as a sales matter is when the customer requires technical assistance
with their configuration or network design (different matter).
Paul
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin
Not us... We're making it about as easy as possible. In many cases,
we offer discounts for dual-stacking.
Owen
On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Hiya folks,
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change
Pricing hasn't been an issue when I've dealt with them. It's been more
of a Have your account manager issue the order so we can make the
appropriate changes. which is just a business process and not unexpected.
Only reason I don't have v6 on Qwest is that I'm connected to a Juniper
and I
As it relates directly to QoS on 6700 series cards, yes those blades do COS
based QoS. So if you want to put voice traffic in a priority queue you would
do something like this:
! map COS 5 to the priority queue, assuming you want COS 5 in the priority queue
priority-queue cos-map 1 5
! Set the
* Saku Ytti:
I think we really need community tool to test BGP implementations against
known/past bugs and unknown (fuzzied) bugs.
Testing is the easy part. Meeting all the requirements for getting
the fix rolled out on the (relevant parts of the) Internet is
impossible because many ISPs have
Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent.
I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear
thoughts/experiences.
I assume it should be a non-event. We've already got a prefix from arin
that we are going to announce.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED
On 11/18/2010 4:39 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent.
I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear
thoughts/experiences.
I assume it should be a non-event. We've already got a prefix from arin
that we are going to announce.
We have it up and running with cogent we have had no issues with cogent.
But have a much larger issue in everyone we need to connect with is
still using IPv4.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Nick Olsen [mailto:n...@flhsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:39 PM
To:
Sprint keeps telling us they do not yet support IPv6. Is this not the
case?
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Why is your company treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter?
On
Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or
2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent.
On 11/18/2010 4:08 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
We have it up and running with cogent we have had no issues with cogent.
But have a much larger issue in everyone we need to connect with is
still
Technically it was a non-event.
Layer 8 wise, they refused to turn up IPv6 without a renewal or new order.
Time Warner Cable is demanding a new order and additional costs to support V6.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 02:10:56PM -0800, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
Sprint keeps telling us they do not yet support IPv6.
http://www.sprintv6.net/sprintlink_ipv6_overview.html
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- d...@ircnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:06 PM
Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales
matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP
addresses or BGP?
[WES] Because in most
TW Telecom, Not Time Warner Cable. And TW Telecom already told me it was a
simple change order with a NRC of 25.00
Haven't talked to cogent about it yet.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED x106
From: Jon Auer j...@tapodi.net
Sent: Thursday,
On 11/18/2010 14:10, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
Sprint keeps telling us they do not yet support IPv6. Is this not the
case?
I'd say that's not completely true. IPv6 is not available everywhere on
the edge of 1239, but it is available. Contact your rep and place an SCA
request for dual stack on
Good to know about TWT, and yes, I know that TWT != TWC...
Figured it was a good datapoint considering the concurrent discussion
of providers charging for v6...
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
TW Telecom, Not Time Warner Cable. And TW Telecom already told me
This is probably more appropriate for the cisco-nsp list, but what
process is taking up the CPU or is it due to interrupts?
To the best of my knowledge the crypto should be hardware accelerated,
while everything else is going to be done in software on the 3800.
-Pete
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at
On 11/18/2010 5:14 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or
2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent.
Interesting. I noticed a similar issue with ipv6.cnn.com today. I dont
see it via TATA, but see it via Cogent. So whats the story behind it
and ARIN
On 11/18/2010 14:39, Pete Lumbis wrote:
This is probably more appropriate for the cisco-nsp list, but what
process is taking up the CPU or is it due to interrupts?
To the best of my knowledge the crypto should be hardware accelerated,
while everything else is going to be done in software on
On 11/18/2010 14:24, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
[WES] Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6
deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the
future, before you call my company out in public with tenuous assertions
like this, please at
On 11/18/2010 5:44 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 11/18/2010 5:14 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or
2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent.
Interesting. I noticed a similar issue with ipv6.cnn.com today. I dont
see it via TATA, but see it via
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:
Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent.
I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear
thoughts/experiences.
I assume it should be a non-event. We've already got a prefix from arin
that we
Do you have the VPN/SSL AIM module? That would offload the crypto work.
Supposedly capable of full 100Mbps line rate, I have them in 2811s.
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen
Ah, I'm always quick to jump to the TWT !=TWC point. As many people I talk
to get that wrong.
But yes, Great data point. Seems like most of the bigger upstreams support
IPv6.
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED x106
From: Jon Auer
That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
native, If they can).
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED x106
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net wrote:
On 11/18/2010 5:14 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or
2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent.
Interesting. I noticed a similar issue with ipv6.cnn.com today. I dont
see it via
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 5:24 PM, George, Wes E [NTK]
wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com wrote:
Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty.
[WES] Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6
deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the
future, before you
My point was this: if IPv6 is the next Internet protocol then at some
point in the very near future it is a -standard- component of -every-
product you're paid for. Not a new feature customers may order. At
worst it's like requesting IP addresses - an included component
configurable with a
On 11/18/10 3:00 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
That's what I'm hearing. Cogent refuses to peer with HE via IPv6.
So cogent IPv6 Customers currently can not hit things at HE. And they can't
do anything about it. Besides 6to4 tunneling and BGP peering with HE (or
native, If they can).
Wait, a
On 11/18/10 11:12 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
My IPv6 dealings with Sprint have been purely technical from all
aspects. If you were to ask about, say, Verizon; well, check the
archives for my failed experience. =)
Not here. We've been on their tunneled AS6175 network for some time and
now
What would be the best way to configure your dns once you've set up IPv6
6to4? Separate the IPv4 and IPV6 domains or let them be the same?
That is, use something like example.com for your existing IPv4 address
and something like 6.example.com for IPv6 (and www.6.example.com etc.)?
Or is it
In message 4ce5c820.5030...@mompl.net, Jeroen van Aart writes:
What would be the best way to configure your dns once you've set up IPv6
6to4? Separate the IPv4 and IPV6 domains or let them be the same?
That is, use something like example.com for your existing IPv4 address
and something
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
Being highly pedantic Germans, this annoyed quite a few people within
the DENOG
TWT is not TWC are two separate companies
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Jon Auer [mailto:j...@tapodi.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6
Good to know about TWT, and yes, I know that TWT != TWC...
Figured it was a good datapoint
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:17:43PM -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Wow. CNN now has IPv6. That's awesome. I guess i missed the memo.
So, major players with IPv6 are?
ipv6.cnn.com (just book marked it)
ipv6.comcast.net
ipv6.google.com (or you can have it all with a white-list)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:45:19PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
Subject: IPv6 6to4 and dns Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:43:12PM -0800 Quoting
Jeroen van Aart (jer...@mompl.net):
What would be the best way to configure your dns once you've set up IPv6
6to4? Separate the IPv4 and IPV6 domains or let them be the same?
The same. Separation would be
On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
What would be the best way to configure your dns once you've set up IPv6
6to4? Separate the IPv4 and IPV6 domains or let them be the same?
That is, use something like example.com for your existing IPv4 address and
something like
Since the poll is a straight yes/no option with no preference, I will
express my preference here. While I find the term quibble fun and
amusing, I think hextet is a far more useful term because it does not
have the overloaded human semantics that come with quibble.
I'm sorry to quibble with the
49 matches
Mail list logo
